/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Mythbusters is prepared lines and pandering to the lowest denominator.

They haven't ever busted shiat, even when trying to look past all their bullshiat, the holes in scientific methods is obvious. If your understanding of authorities of science relies on them, you'd be a moron, which is probably also why their show is doing so well, alongside "Here comes Honey Booboo".

And yet, they still do more for science and intelligent thought than people biatching on the internet.

Do they do this on Mythbusters? Yes, in its simplest form they absolutely do. Therefore, they are following the scientific process.

Now the real argument is "does the experimental procedure have sufficient rigor to provide constant value and reproducibility?" In some experiment the answer is yes, on others it is clearly no. It really depends on the complexity of the hypothesis they are testing.I would say they do some great pilot studies, but I wouldn't let them test pharmaceuticals.

The need for rigor and constant value change based on the risk.If I am studying if raccoons will change their home range based on the availability of food, I don't need a control to run an ANOVA. What would that look like, a population denied any food? Food availability is the test treament here.

If I am testing whether a man-made chemical can cure cancer without seriously harming or killing the patient, I better have enough rigor to assure that under reproduction, the results maintain a constant value. The reality is

/funny thing is, the attacks on Mythbusters are the same as scientists make on each other

//as a scientist, I hypothesize this give validity to the claim they are scientists

Intelligent design is junk science. Myth Busters conducts real science with limited time and money. They can only do a limited number of attempts, they can't test every possibility, sometimes they get something wrong, but this is true of all science to varying degrees. It doesn't stop being science just because you think you're too cool for it.

Mikey1969:I agree though, it's like nails on a chalkboard when they call their crappy methods "science", my stepsons know not to take anything they say on that show as actual science, and if they have questions about any of the experiments, we can research them together, and most likely find more accurate results in our first Google search.

And THIS is why Mythbusters is important. It actually got your stepson interested in science, even if it was to disprove their "science". I applaud the show for getting kids interested in testing theories, coming up with solutions, etc.

It's why I find the Big Bang Theory hate on here to be so funny. That show has gotten tons of people interested in science and science fiction, but because it's on as a sitcom, it automatically gets hate. Some of the brightest minds on this planet absolutely love the show (Stephen Hawking, Neil Tyson, Brian Greene, Astronaut Mike Massimino) but Fark has to hate it because it's actually popular.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.

but known by many Londoners as the "Walkie Talkie" for its distinctive shape.

This is supposed to look like a walkie-talkie? I think this skyscraper in Santiago is way more walkie-talkie-esque:

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

J. Frank Parnell:If the Mythbusters subjugated themselves to a couple physicists the show would have more scientific sway.

And you would never see it again after that episode. Its ratings would drop into the toilet and the execs would pull it.

As they should.

If I want rigorous peer-reviewed science, I'll read a peer-reviewed journal. It's not like there's a shortage of them.

Mythbusters is about a mindset that is sorely needed in the general population - that testing an idea is actually good. Many organizations would prefer that people don't do this and take things at face value "because we told you so."

mbillips:You know who would make some boring-ass TV shows? Farkers who criticize Mythbusters for lacking scientific rigor.

Adam Savage actually made that very point (not the Farkers crack, but the rest of it) at a panel he did (I can't remember what year, or which con, but it's on youtube. For most of the panel, he talks about the making of their swimming in syrup episode...) Near the end of the Q&A part, someone asked him if they ever thought about publishing their work in peer review. He pointed out that nothing they did (except _maybe_ once) had the rigor for anything approaching peer review, although one thing they aimed for with their more interesting results was to invite actual science teams to do actual science experiments inspired by their 'experiments'. (Which actually happened, the swimming in syrup ep was inspired by a real experiment, which in turn apparently inspired the original science team to revisit their experiment with much thicker syrup.)

He was also asked about some of the other Mythbusters clones on Discovery and where he thought they were going wrong. IIRC, during this answer, he mentioned that while the show wasn't _totally_ unscripted, the narrative of the show was frequently tweaked and sometimes drastically changed while the experiments were taking place. Bad for testing hypotheses, but he pointed out that it made for more investment from the hosts, one of the things he thought was lacking in some of the other shows, that the hosts weren't all that interested in what they were doing.

joeshill:"I hypothesize that it is impossible to set a ship afire with mirrors."Later that same year: "Well, I tried a few different methods, and couldn't set the ship afire - therefore, my hypothesis is correct!"

That was never the hypothesis. You could set a ship on fire (or more likely start fires ON it) with mirrors if you set them up right. That's how heliostats work.

The actual myth was that a group of soldiers with polished bronze shields were able to act in tandem to set fire to an entire fleet of ships approaching to attack in a harbor by reflecting the light of the sun using their shields.

Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

At some point you can say "myth busted" with a high enough confidence factor.

I don't understand that hate. Mythbusters got both my niece and my nephew interested in science as teens. Both are well on their way to earning their Masters (one in marine biology, the other in chemical engineering). Sure, at the time they were just gawking at two guys blowing stuff up unnecessarily, but it sparked an interest that lead them to a pretty awesome real science.

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Mythbusters is prepared lines and pandering to the lowest denominator.

They haven't ever busted shiat, even when trying to look past all their bullshiat, the holes in scientific methods is obvious. If your understanding of authorities of science relies on them, you'd be a moron, which is probably also why their show is doing so well, alongside "Here comes Honey Booboo".

I feel sad for you, that you somehow can't enjoy Mythbusters as science based entertainment. That you somehow can't understand that they are not making grand pronouncements of reality, but that within the scope of their operation that something was doable or not. That you somehow can't appreciate that the absolute core of science is that ideas should be tested, and that as long as that message gets through there is extreme educational value to it in addition to the fun of seeing things blown up.

Come to the light, brother. You don't have to live in such darkness and hatred.

sjmcc13:The biggest problem with their death ray tests is the people they had aiming the mirrors, Archamedes would have had people with the profesionalism of soldiers, they used high school/university students doing it for a laugh.

I used to be a soldier, and I can tell you that it wouldn't have made any difference. Professionalism can't overcome biology for more than a few seconds; even if you had the hands of a surgeon, your own heartbeat and breathing would be enough to disrupt it at any range- like, say the distance to a ship in a harbor.

They did not. If they had used modern reflective materials aimed at a stationary target, they would undoubtedly have succeeded in setting it on fire. That's not hard to do.

Now, try doing the same using only materials available to the ancient inhabitants of Syracuse and you will only succeed in elevating the temperature of the target after a very long time, but you will not succeed in setting it on fire. The Mythbusters did all they could, including concentrating all the mirrors on one stationary boat (remember, Archimedes' death ray was supposed to have sunk a whole moving fleet), and ignoring the fact that given the orientation of Syracuse's harbour, the sun would have been at his back.

One more thing: in TFA, the plastic mirrors did not catch fire, they melted, which can be done at temperatures much lower than those necessary to ignite wood.

Rising Ape:Kit Fister: joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

For both of you:

[imgs.xkcd.com image 599x524]

Feynman was in fact very aware of the importance of rigour, as you can see if you read his comments on psychologists' rat-running experiments. Bad experiments are worse than useless because they make you think you've discovered something when in fact you haven't. "Bookkeeping" indeed...

Do they teach "missing the point" in that ivory tower you spend so much time in, or do you just practice that on your own?

Rising Ape:Kit Fister: joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

For both of you:

[imgs.xkcd.com image 599x524]

Feynman was in fact very aware of the importance of rigour, as you can see if you read his comments on psychologists' rat-running experiments. Bad experiments are worse than useless because they make you think you've discovered something when in fact you haven't. "Bookkeeping" indeed...

Okay, and if you expect a one-hour TV show to cover rigorous scientific testing of myths, you're an elitist prick.

tripleseven:RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:1) they used prop planes2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.

Prop vs Jet won't matter. The idea is the same.The speed of the conveyor is irrelevant as the plane is pulled through the air and the wheels are just resting on the ground. You can spin those wheels as much as you want and it won't affect the plane taking off. So if you match the speed of the conveyor to the plane, so what...the wheels just spin twice as fast. Planes fly because of airspeed not ground speed. They couldn't give fark all about it.

Think of a situation where we use a "conveyor" to help a plane fly. An aircraft carrier is a great example. And if you look at how the catapults work, they attach to the landing gear, which is fixed, and thus can pull the plane along. We don't use a conveyor belt because the wheels would just spin.

I don't get why architecture firms think this is such an impossible thing to think of happening. The Disney Concert Hall was totally death raying shiat in LA when it was first constructed. They had to sandblast it and put up netting.

Mikey1969:That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.

I want them to learn that claims must stand up to testing, which most kids don't get. Shiat, most ADULTS don't get it. This isn't about rigor, publishable process, or being "complete" or "uncontaminated". It's a TV show, not a university science department. It's about the basic idea that things have to be tested, and claims require evidence and have a basis in fact.

Mythbusters does more for intelligent thought than any television show out there. Including the survey-style documentaries like Cosmos. Those are just lectures. Good lectures, yes, but they're just smart people in exposition. This gets people interested, gets their hands in the experiments, and shows you how stuff works. It's not perfect, it's not complete, but it pushes millions of people in the right direction.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.They did 3 episodes (one being a full length campaign ad) "proving" the Archimedes claim busted, when there's a youtube video of some (HS?) science class actually doing it.

No, there isn't. Some students showed that they could hold modern mirrors in an array that would set pitch afire at close range. That translates to polished bronze shields setting moving ships afire at an effective range in no way at all.

OnlyM3:They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.

I started watching the show with my 7 year old.

The Myth Buster:1. Clearly state the hypothesis being tested.2. Explain how they are going to test the theory and often, the limitations of their experiment.3. They often graph out the results.4. Then they get goofy and blow crap up.

I want my son to learn items 1-3 in that list. He likes item 4. I am not so interested in the scientific rigor of their experiments as I am in how they demonstrate the methodology.

Mikey1969:I fail to see your point. Is it the "stationary" thing? Do you know how slow those boats moved back then?

I'm gonna guess he meant the waves. I've got an old fresnel lens you can melt a penny with. But you've got to keep the "hot spot" right on the penny for several minutes-- lose your aim or focus distance even a little and you lose your heat. If the hot spot wobbles around on the boat as it bobs in the waves, or worse, if the soldiers correct for this in a way that is not in perfect sync, it won't get concentrated enough to do much besides sunburn the sailors faster than usual.

I have no doubt you can melt things with reflected sunlight. With modern gimbals and tracking on the mirrors, you could probably even melt holes in steel boats with reflected sunlight-- but I have my doubts you could ever train soldiers to be coordinated and steady enough to keep thousands of overlapping reflected spots in the same relative location on a bobbing target.

Cyclometh:PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.

It's unlikely the show's producers or hosts would ever claim anything more than that.

Often what they do isn't so much scientific investigaiton, but rather a demonstraiton of practical applications of science or pointing out that when yu look at something the proper way, the answer is obvious.Two good examples: Showing why hitting an oncoming car travelling at the same speed as you isn't any worse than hitting a wall - Basic physics, logically explained. Airplane on a treadmill - Of course it takes off, you just have to undo the logic trick your mind is playing on you.

Hard-core investigative science? Not really. A good exercise in critical thinking and fun water-cooler stuff? You bet! All that, and a Walrus in a funny hat. Who could ask for more?

MooseUpNorth:Cyclometh: Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

I'll just point out one thing, though. The modern mirrors were flat and aimed at the white sail. The soldiers were likely holding their shields backwards, with the concave side facing the ships (focusing the light), likely targeting the darker hull (where black tar was used to seal the seams), and there may have been a whole bunch more of them.

The back of a hoplon looks like this. The focal point can't be more than 10 feet from the shield; it's quite a deep dish. And of course, you'd have to remove all the hardware and polish it first. Which would be tough, as it's made of wood, sometimes covered on the outer face with a thin sheet of bronze. It would be quicker just to make bronze mirrors than to use shields.

MooseUpNorth:Cyclometh: Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

I'll just point out one thing, though. The modern mirrors were flat and aimed at the white sail. The soldiers were likely holding their shields backwards, with the concave side facing the ships (focusing the light), likely targeting the darker hull (where black tar was used to seal the seams), and there may have been a whole bunch more of them.

Concave mirrors would be the absolute wrong way to do it if you were actually trying to weaponize solar convergence - they would require the target to be located more or less precisely at the focal point.

Flat mirrors independently aimed can achieve the same effect, but at a variable range - effectively the whole system is acting as one giant concave mirror, with an adaptable focal point.

You'll occasionally see people make DIY solar furnaces by attaching small, flat mirrors to satellite dishes. The independent mirrors are flat - the system of mirrors is concave.

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

Some of the myths they test can be attributed to something happening under "perfect conditions", like shooting a bullet into the barrel of another gun - it might be a 1 in a billion thing, but to say "busted" just because it's improbable doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible.

Then there's myths like riding a motorcycle 300 feet across an 8-foot deep lake. That totally floored me. I'd have thought surface tension would have been broken by 500+ pounds (motorcycle + rider) within 20 feet. That was definitely a "WTF" episode for me. :)

FarkinNortherner:I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They consistently do bad science. I find the show entertaining, but their methods are abysmal. Also, they sometimes confuse their ineptitude as scientists with busting a myth. Then there's that whole argument people have that they aren't actually exploring myths so much as examining/recreating scenes from movies.

Kit Fister:joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

For both of you:

[imgs.xkcd.com image 599x524]

Feynman was in fact very aware of the importance of rigour, as you can see if you read his comments on psychologists' rat-running experiments. Bad experiments are worse than useless because they make you think you've discovered something when in fact you haven't. "Bookkeeping" indeed...

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Mythbusters is prepared lines and pandering to the lowest denominator.

They haven't ever busted shiat, even when trying to look past all their bullshiat, the holes in scientific methods is obvious. If your understanding of authorities of science relies on them, you'd be a moron, which is probably also why their show is doing so well, alongside "Here comes Honey Booboo".

Paris1127:/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

willfullyobscure:capt.hollister: Without advanced mirrors and a highly precise way to focus them and keep them focused, even he could not do it using only bronze age technology. Like it or not, he only had polished bronze to work with, catapults would have been more effective.

these people built infrastructure and tools and art that wouldn't be equaled for another 1800 years, dude. We're not talking magic AT ALL.

Polished bronze has an albedo almost as good as that of silver, and not quite as good as mercury; all are better than steel. There's a reason people used it for mirrors for five thousand years, YOU CAN SEE YOUR FACE IN IT PRETTY GOOD.

Between the construction and craftsmanship techniques available to Archimedes at the time and the demonstrable ability to execute large engineering projects, he could have probably created a 10 story mirror array you aim with one hand. Or a firing array that would ignite solvents in the air or water, or poured on to ship- I daresay a plume of white hot smoke boiling through a focused beam would look like "the air was on fire" as the ancient reports go.

But don't take it from me. Put your faith in a hammy reality show or, y'know take it from some actual scientists and engineers that did the math.

boom goes the dynamite

Boom, indeed. Those were MIT students and their instructors.a) They used modern mirrors. No one doubts the capacity of tightly focused modern mirrors to ignite a wooden target.b) They calculated it would "only" take minutes to reposition and refocus the mirrors on a moving target...c) They used a stationary target on land. Even so, they had to repeat the test because of clouds. Maybe it was a cloudy day in Syracuse all those years ago since the Romans did not lose their fleet and they did manage to capture the city...d) The author's instinct, not the math, tells him that an anchored ship would have remained sufficiently stationary. This is a remarkable statement. He's saying that for their modern version of the heat ray to have worked as a weapon, the attacking ships would have had to be at anchor. The Romans were not great sailors, preferring to fight on land, but I'm pretty sure even they did not attack a harbour by anchoring their ships. Even then it's only the author's gut feeling that any one ship would have been sufficiently stationary for the focused mirrors to build enough heat to ignite the ship.e) In the end the author offers only speculation as to whether the MIT team could have ignited a floating ship using their modern mirrors, let alone using mirrors available to the ancient Greeks. We do not know the answer because that is not what they tested. What they tested was whether it is possible to ignite a wooden silhouette of a boat on the roof of a Boston building using hand focused modern mirrors. And the answer is yes.

To me, the most damning bit regarding this legend comes from a reading of Italian literature regarding Archimedes. Italians love and venerate Archimedes like one of their own. He's considered the greatest inventor of all time. In Italian literature he is rightfully remembered (and even immortalized in comics) for his many and important inventions. Particular attention is paid to the many advanced weapons he deployed in the defence of Syracuse. Absent from that list is the supposed heat ray. Why ? because the legend of the heat ray was not added to Archimedes' biography until centuries after his death ! It is apparently a Roman literary invention to embellish the story of a man who caused great difficulty to Roman invaders. Makes the Romans seem all the greater for having defeated him...

Dr. Picklebacon:mbillips: Cyclometh: PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.

Uh, have you seen polished bronze? At any distance at all, you'd barely notice the reflection. Even a modern lighthouse isn't blinding, at night, at any range over a mile. You have to factor in the RANGE at which Archimedes' weapon would have to work. In order to focus on a target at 100 meters, you'd need a mirror diameter of 200 meters, and unless you had tiered bleachers to work with, you'd have only a narrow band of focused light. And if the ships were closer than 100 meters, under oars, they'd cover the distance to the dock in a matter of seconds. Triremes are FAST. At better than 10 knots in a sprint, you'd have less than 20 seconds to start a fire. Even if you did set it on fire, it would be alongside and unloaded before it became dangerous to the ship. And all the other ships you WEREN'T focusing on would have unloaded their marines.

This one is too ludicrous to NEED busting.

Or, you know, a hill. But they probably didn't have those either, right?

Again, who gives a shiat? Given ideal conditions, with a REALLY sunny day, your massive array of mirrors might start a small fire on one trireme as it gets super close. Which accomplishes nothing, as the the other 100 triremes unload hoplites and kill your silly ass.

willfullyobscure:capt.hollister: Without advanced mirrors and a highly precise way to focus them and keep them focused, even he could not do it using only bronze age technology. Like it or not, he only had polished bronze to work with, catapults would have been more effective.

these people built infrastructure and tools and art that wouldn't be equaled for another 1800 years, dude. We're not talking magic AT ALL.

Polished bronze has an albedo almost as good as that of silver, and not quite as good as mercury; all are better than steel. There's a reason people used it for mirrors for five thousand years, YOU CAN SEE YOUR FACE IN IT PRETTY GOOD.

Between the construction and craftsmanship techniques available to Archimedes at the time and the demonstrable ability to execute large engineering projects, he could have probably created a 10 story mirror array you aim with one hand. Or a firing array that would ignite solvents in the air or water, or poured on to ship- I daresay a plume of white hot smoke boiling through a focused beam would look like "the air was on fire" as the ancient reports go.

But don't take it from me. Put your faith in a hammy reality show or, y'know take it from some actual scientists and engineers that did the math.

boom goes the dynamite

This is farking retarded. They're talking about setting a ship on fire at 100 feet. A trireme can cover 100 feet in about 6 seconds. Who cares if you start a small fire on the hull in that amount of time? I'm already aboard your pier and stabbing your ass with a nine-foot spear.

25,000 men under arms(conservatively- Syracuse had a population of 300,000 when it was beseiged, and Archimedes was captain of the defenses)

The Mythbusters Human Capital:

two pairs of tits, four helpless dorks, and people from the internet that want to be on TV

I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.

And that's your problem. You fail to take into consideration that inventions do not come fully formed out of nothing. That would be magic. New inventions are always built on the back of previous inventions. For example, to build a catapult you have to have the tools to fell trees, you must have the tools and know-how to shape and fasten beams. You must have the materials, tools, and know-how to fabricate ropes, etc... had he lived in the stone age, not even Archimedes could have invented a catapult.

If Archimedes were alive today, he might very well have the ability to invent a device using modern materials that would enable him to sink Roman ships at a distance. Without advanced mirrors and a highly precise way to focus them and keep them focused, even he could not do it using only bronze age technology. Like it or not, he only had polished bronze to work with, catapults would have been more effective.

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

Watch an episode from the first season, then watch one of the current episodes. The first half of an old episode was research (calling experts on the phone, visiting the morgue, etc.), while experimentation happened during the second half. Only one or two myths were tested. A current episode is 1/2 wearing funny hats/painting things, 1/4 recap, 1/8 product placement, and 1/8 experimentation. To make things worse they try to cram too many things in, so they are constantly jumping between myths. I probably wouldn't mind Mythbusters so much if I was only exposed to new episodes without knowing what they had been.

Cyclometh:sjmcc13: The biggest problem with their death ray tests is the people they had aiming the mirrors, Archamedes would have had people with the profesionalism of soldiers, they used high school/university students doing it for a laugh.

I used to be a soldier, and I can tell you that it wouldn't have made any difference. Professionalism can't overcome biology for more than a few seconds; even if you had the hands of a surgeon, your own heartbeat and breathing would be enough to disrupt it at any range- like, say the distance to a ship in a harbor.

And ancient Greece didn't have the type of mirrors you'd need.

You can always tell when someone has never been a soldier by how superhuman they think soldiers are.

"Oh yeah well a SOLDIER could've done it!" Yeah, just as poorly as anyone else.

huntercr:In Gradschool there are amazingly eccentric and eclectic people that you meet. They are themselves fascinating and hilarious. Geekdom/embracing the nerd is different in different disciplines, but there core of it is appreciating the eccentric and embracing it in a warm "laughing with" sort of way. BBT is mostly a "laughing at", outside looking in sort of humor. It's writers used to sit next to geeks in college in the student union, rather than being geeks.

Odd, how many geeks (myself included) see it as "laughing with". I laugh at the jokes because I am capable of laughing at myself (several jokes have me and my geek-wife pointing at each other saying "that one's about YOU"), and I see it as plenty warm-hearted, seeing as how the main characters enjoy their lives and are enthusiastic about their pastimes. Those who disparage them are typically "villains" (like Penny's hulking ex-boyfriend) or idiots.

They try for the joke about Uranus instead of saying something like "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the precipitate".

So? They sometimes joke about my field (psychology) and often bypass "real" insider jokes ("Why did David Buss become a social psychologist?" "Chicks dig it.") in favor of obvious stuff like Sheldon trying operant conditioning (extra credit points for those who noticed Sheldon's misuse of the term "negative reinforcement" in that episode) and Leonard's mother issues. Tell the truth; how many "real geeks" do you think would GET the David Buss joke? Even if "real geeks" were the target audience, the jokes still have to be broad enough that the D&D player who is not an anime fan would still get most of the anime jokes, and the trekkie who is not a comic book geek can get the Flash jokes, and the physicists can get most of the psychology jokes, and the microbiologists can get most of the astrophysics jokes.

tripleseven:RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:1) they used prop planes2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.

Not that I really want to get dragged into such an argument, but...

It doesn't matter one bit... The key part of the myth is believing that the conveyor belt matters at all... It doesn't... The wheels on the plane are just free-spinning and if you spin up the belt to match take-off speed, then the wheels will simply spin twice as fast as they normally would on normal ground... Yet, the plane would still continue moving forward at the same speed as it would on normal ground... Because, the propelling action that's moving it forward has nothing to do with the wheels' contact with the ground (minus some minor friction slowing it down a bit)... It's all about air movement, whether with a propellor or a jet engine... So, I can't see how it would make any difference to the outcome...

People think that if you move the conveyor belt fast enough, you'll inhibit the plane's forward motion... If you could do that, yes you'd prevent it from taking off... The thing is though that you can't do that via a mere conveyor belt, no matter HOW fast you spin it... At best, you might cause the wheels to self-destruct from spinning far faster than they were designed to... But, otherwise, they're just going to spin as fast as the belt + however fast the plane's thrust is pushing it forward, and the plane will still move forward roughly as per normal...

gadian:Meh. Mythbusters never had enough people trying it. How many soldiers are in a legion? How many legions of highly trained and disciplined men used to shiatty slave work and who were ordered to stand around did Archimedes have at his disposal? More than a couple of classes of science geeks, that's for sure.

Actually, armies weren't all that large back then compared to modern ones, and most weren't what we consider professional standing armies. Sparta had about 2000 men in its army and it was one of the only "standing armies" there were. Most of the Greek city-states had very small armies unless they were in a war, in which case you had citizen-soldiers making up the bulk of the forces.

These weren't SEAL Team Six. And even at the height of the wars against Persia, the Greeks fielded about 40 thousand men- which took pretty much all of them working together.

Magorn:Archidmedes used something more prosaic like seeding the harbor with naptha, and the legend just grew up around that.

And it seems to me there's a dirt simple way of proving this. If Archimedes did consume the roman fleet at Syracuse then an archaeological expeidition should be able to find some evidence of charred roman-era Triremes in the silt of the modern day harbor, no?

I'm inclined to go with the "everyone is right!" explinayion which goes like this:Archimedes had a buncha stuff in play to fend of the Romans, from giant pincer claws to steam canons, to catapults, to flashing mirrors to greek fire to who knows what all.

So he probably had a mirror contraption to blind the oncoming sailors, and some Greek fire launchers. Those watching the battle would see the mirrors turned on the boats at about the same time they burst into flames, and viola! Burning mirrors.

There isn't really any dispute that the Romans attacked Syracuse in 212 B.C. and were defeated with their navy in fiery ruins. And finding remnants of burned wooden ships underwater from two thousand years ago is no easy thing. Extraordinarily rare that we find even a few scattered pieces, and unlikely if we did that we could conclusively tie it to this particular event anyway.

tripleseven:MB did it wrong in 2 ways:1) they used prop planes2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.

1) Totally irrelevant.2) Also irrelevant.

The plane is not getting its thrust from the wheels; it is pushing against the air. By rolling backwards against its wheels, you're not countering its thrust and the wheels don't provide enough resistance to reduce it appreciably when the engines are pushing on it.

tripleseven:RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:1) they used prop planes2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.

None of which mattered. It's another one that's really high up on the list of, "shiat that didn't actually need busting."

The wheels are free-spinning. The thrust is acting against the plane. The only counterforce caused by the conveyor is equivalent to that which can be imparted on the plane by way of friction between the wheels and the plane, i.e., very little relative to the thrust of the prop (or jet engines).

The net effect is that the wheels just spin a bit faster than they would on a static runway. Virtually none of that force is transferred to the plane body.

GameSprocket:There are not too many programs or movies that inspire anyone by delving into the mundane details of their subject. Even Sagan's "Cosmos" didn't get into the detailed mathematical equations behind the topic of each show. This whole idea of "perfect or nothing" is why STEM education is falling off. The media can't portray anything scientific (or historical) without being nitpicked to death, so these things drop out of the popular culture.

Dude, have you ever tried to understand any of the equations used in astrophysics? Astrophysics is farking hard, even if you already have a PhD in math or some other branch of physics. If your target audience was people who could get anything from flashing the equations on the screen, Cosmos would have had about 80 people watching it, max.

The really funny thing is real adult scientists either like or don't care much about shows like Myth Busters or The big bang Theory. They either like that more people will actually pay attention after asking about their job or are in the field and they are lucky to have a shower once a month let alone cable TV. With all the other crap on TV those two shows are pretty goddamned low on the scale of things that any rational human being could possibly find objection with.

I don't really like either show, and I don't generally find the time to 'hate' any TV show, and if I did it sure as hell wouldn't be one of those. Seriously though if you don't like something, don't watch it. I don't sit around watching honey boo boo or jersey shore just so I can impress some other internet users with how sophisticated I am because I hate the show.

TLDR: There are much much worse shows on TV to get all huffy about and it's stupid to rail against any TV show anyway.

willfullyobscure:So you have no cogent response to any part of my hypothesis that Archimedes possessed not only the resources, the demonstrable ability to engineer sophisticated large scale projects in any medium available, and the man power, not so say the innate mental ability, to create the death ray of legend,

GameSprocket:Mikey1969: GameSprocket: OnlyM3: They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.

I started watching the show with my 7 year old.

The Myth Buster:1. Clearly state the hypothesis being tested.2. Explain how they are going to test the theory and often, the limitations of their experiment.3. They often graph out the results.4. Then they get goofy and blow crap up.

I want my son to learn items 1-3 in that list. He likes item 4. I am not so interested in the scientific rigor of their experiments as I am in how they demonstrate the methodology.

That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.

Yes. It is less than an hour-long show usually covering more than one experiment. Sure they could reproduce the sap-drop experiment and have an extra-special episode every couple of decades when something happens, but I don't think that would interest anyone in Science.

There are not too many programs or movies that inspire anyone by delving into the mundane details of their subject. Even Sagan's "Cosmos" didn't get into the detailed mathematical equations behind the topic of each show. This whole idea of "perfect or nothing" is why STEM education is falling off. The media can't portray anything scientific (or historical) without being nitpicked to death, so these things drop out of the popular culture.

This. Unfortunately when it comes to science, it is essentially a religion whereby the zealots biatch and moan if it's not exactly perfect and executed with MIT laboratory conditions.

Mikey1969:That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.

No. I want my kid to have their interest sparked. I would like the real teachers in their life (myself included) to show them the proper scientific methods when they do their own experiments. I certainly don't expect an hour TV entertainment show to do anything more than start the learning process. I also love when my kids see them do revisits. It introduces them to the basic fact that an experiment can (in fact must) be used to refine a hypothesis and be done again. Once again, it is the job of the real teachers (who hopefully spend more than one hour a week teaching their subject) to teach them the extent that this must be done in "real" science.

bubo_sibiricus:J. Frank Parnell: If the Mythbusters subjugated themselves to a couple physicists the show would have more scientific sway.

And you would never see it again after that episode. Its ratings would drop into the toilet and the execs would pull it.

As they should.

If I want rigorous peer-reviewed science, I'll read a peer-reviewed journal. It's not like there's a shortage of them.

Mythbusters is about a mindset that is sorely needed in the general population - that testing an idea is actually good. Many organizations would prefer that people don't do this and take things at face value "because we told you so."

Exactly - the show isn't about scientific rigour. It's about evidence based thinking - asking questions, forming (often multiple) hypothesis, testing them, refining (or abandoning) the hypothesis and/or experiment based on the results - rinse and repeat. That's the core of science. I also love the fact that they will often respond to criticism of their techniques and conclusions with an open mind and revisit past experiments with new information and techniques - this is something that some real scientific communities could do more effectively.

The one thing I wish they would do better would be to discuss the limitations of their experiments. The error bounds are as important as the data point - the lack of rigour doesn't necessarily bother me if the limitations are understood. And I could certainly do their homework a little better on some questions. But those are teachable moments for my kids & I - explaining why the experiment may not really be proving things one way or another - and then they come back with a followup episode exploring those points reinforcing the whole evidence thinking bit (and making dad look good).

Could test these "myths" with all the scientific rigour, significant number of trials, well done error analysis, etc.? Sure - but nobody would watch it or pay for it.

Anyone else find it funny that there's more history in one episode of Drunk History on Comedy Central than the entire line-up on the History channel?

don't forget the Animal Channel....

http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/mermaids/videos/mermaids.htm

Pffft, Discovery also did that during Shark Week with the whole Megalodon fiasco. I would call them a bunch of dumbasses, but that award goes to the countless people who actually believed it was a real documentary and there are still Megalodon sharks that live in the oceans.

Mikey1969:scottydoesntknow: Well of course, but that's when parenting actually steps in (like you and your stepson). The kids who become interested in science without the parental guidance are still interested in science, they'll just have to be corrected at the institutional level for their methods.

I still stand by the fact that any science is better than no science. Even crappy science leads the way to figuring out correct science (provided the person has the dedication to do so).

I understand that, I'm just worried about the adults out there who think these guys' science technique is 100% perfect, that's where the bad science can be really bad, that's the part that bothers me.

The people who believe their science is 100% perfect will never do anything to affect actual science because their belief in how the scientific process works is wrong. They'll either end up educating themselves or giving up.

willfullyobscure:I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.

So, Archimedes wins because you (want to) believe he could have done it? And your supporting evidence is a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the question at hand?

Because that sure as shiat sounds like science to me!

No, wait- it sounds like junk science, that's what I meant. Assuming a conclusion that you like and then finding stuff that looks like it could be supportive of it, but only if you don't look to closely.

Mikey1969:GameSprocket: OnlyM3: They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.

I started watching the show with my 7 year old.

The Myth Buster:1. Clearly state the hypothesis being tested.2. Explain how they are going to test the theory and often, the limitations of their experiment.3. They often graph out the results.4. Then they get goofy and blow crap up.

I want my son to learn items 1-3 in that list. He likes item 4. I am not so interested in the scientific rigor of their experiments as I am in how they demonstrate the methodology.

That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.

Yes. It is less than an hour-long show usually covering more than one experiment. Sure they could reproduce the sap-drop experiment and have an extra-special episode every couple of decades when something happens, but I don't think that would interest anyone in Science.

There are not too many programs or movies that inspire anyone by delving into the mundane details of their subject. Even Sagan's "Cosmos" didn't get into the detailed mathematical equations behind the topic of each show. This whole idea of "perfect or nothing" is why STEM education is falling off. The media can't portray anything scientific (or historical) without being nitpicked to death, so these things drop out of the popular culture.

Mikey1969:A: Doing bad science and calling it science does more harm than good. Think of how many people out there just plop their kids down in front of this show without bothering to tell the kids that it's crappy science...

Well of course, but that's when parenting actually steps in (like you and your stepson). The kids who become interested in science without the parental guidance are still interested in science, they'll just have to be corrected at the institutional level for their methods.

I still stand by the fact that any science is better than no science. Even crappy science leads the way to figuring out correct science (provided the person has the dedication to do so).

ThatDarkFellow:Kit Fister: ThatDarkFellow: Every time they did Archimedes mirror they went about it in the laziest, most half-assed way possible.

Yes, because they were supposed to be superserious about it in order to actually prove something in the most stringent way possible. *eyeroll*

Heh, what? If they weren't going to take it seriously then they shouldn't have bothered.

Given the conditions they were going for, I'd say they did it pretty damn well. They're akin to a backyard science fair. If you want to see the tests done to the level of, say, JPL or MIT, then by all means, tune into their productions.

Some much MB hate... it's a goddamn TV show people. It's not "real science" obviously. Don't take it seriously and if you don't find it entertaining, don't watch it. I do sometimes yell at the TV at their methods but in the end I'm mostly watching for Kari and so I can watch their high-speed explosions frame-by-frame.

I totally buy their conclusions on this myth. Imagine you are a dude with a polished metal shield trying to angle the light at a moving ship some few hundreds of yards away. How do you even aim the goddamn thing, let alone keep your light aimed at a single point on a ship that is both moving through the water and constantly bobbing up and down in the swell. And even if you can manage that trick, how could you possibly do it in tandem with a few hundred other people all doing the same thing? With the entire ship illuminated you wouldn't be able to see the light from your shield painting the ship, assuming your shield is a good enough mirror to even cause a visible spot (which I think is highly doubtful).

The beauty of Archimedes mirror weapon was that he just had to say that it worked. Spread the news around the ancient world about this fearsome weapon that burns ships to a crisp. The point is deterrence, not functionality. It's not like they had the internet or TV news reports back then, everything was word of mouth. You could dummy up one fake demonstration, burn a few ships in the harbor, claim the weapon destroyed them, and sit back in safety for generations.

Cyclometh:PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.

Uh, have you seen polished bronze? At any distance at all, you'd barely notice the reflection. Even a modern lighthouse isn't blinding, at night, at any range over a mile. You have to factor in the RANGE at which Archimedes' weapon would have to work. In order to focus on a target at 100 meters, you'd need a mirror diameter of 200 meters, and unless you had tiered bleachers to work with, you'd have only a narrow band of focused light. And if the ships were closer than 100 meters, under oars, they'd cover the distance to the dock in a matter of seconds. Triremes are FAST. At better than 10 knots in a sprint, you'd have less than 20 seconds to start a fire. Even if you did set it on fire, it would be alongside and unloaded before it became dangerous to the ship. And all the other ships you WEREN'T focusing on would have unloaded their marines.

This far in and no Kari Byron? All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]

Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are She is the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi makes it worth tuning in for...

FTFY

No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.

Private_Citizen:I've heard some people claim that female orgasm is a myth. I would like to volunteer to work with Kari to prove its real. Don't worry, the science would be very rigorous, with multiple trials in all possible combinations.

after being associated with that show for so long, she is certainly used to disappointment and things that fizzle instead of boom

I've heard some people claim that female orgasm is a myth. I would like to volunteer to work with Kari to prove its real. Don't worry, the science would be very rigorous, with multiple trials in all possible combinations.

Bag-o-Nugs:FarkinNortherner: I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They consistently do bad science. I find the show entertaining, but their methods are abysmal. Also, they sometimes confuse their ineptitude as scientists with busting a myth. Then there's that whole argument people have that they aren't actually exploring myths so much as examining/recreating scenes from movies.

Bad science?! Really?! It's a farking TV show on the Discovery Channel! Not exactly a peer-reviewed science journal, now is it? Anyway, I am pretty sure the whole idea of the show is to get kids interested in science. They aren't exactly rigorous, but it's 45 minute show and I am sure producers have much to say about the content.

BafflerMeal:Yes. That's more or less what the show is now, it would just be more honest with less hand waving. It could also be: "Dude, How did they do That? Let's Try!"

No. Dude, What Would Happen's problem is the same as everyone else that's tried to follow Mythbusters: toning down of the science element and cranking up the in-your-face elements of the show. Dude, What Would Happen was staffed by a bunch of dudebros. You don't learn shiat. You're not motivated to learn shiat. There's nothing to argue with the show about regarding their results. It's just idiots doing stupid shiat and viewers fought with Cartoon Network for years before the network finally gave up and cancelled it because the network loved the show when nobody else did.

If you don't like the word 'myth', just substitute it with the proper scientific word: 'hypothesis'. That's something you're just going to have to learn to live with at this point because the name of the show isn't going away.

Gosling:That's the same conclusion Jamie reached upon failure #3. It doesn't need to set you on fire if you can't see where you're going or where you're supposed to be shooting.

Indeed. And as someone else pointed out upthread, it's even plausible a fire got started accidentally by someone blinded and panicked on a ship. Although I'm not sure if navies at the time would have had open flames on board; mostly navies were used to ram or board, and fire would be inherently dangerous on a wooden ship.

And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

It would be awfully difficult to aim a bow with bright lights flashing in the archer's eyes. That drastically reduces the effectiveness of the attackers' ranged weapons and forces them to rely on melee once they land.

Heck, it's possible that someone got temporarily blinded, dropped a torch, and set his own damn ship on fire, and Team Archimedes mis-interpreted the events.

PanicMan:And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.

Kit Fister:joeshill: Cyclometh: joeshill: "I hypothesize that it is impossible to set a ship afire with mirrors."Later that same year: "Well, I tried a few different methods, and couldn't set the ship afire - therefore, my hypothesis is correct!"

That was never the hypothesis. You could set a ship on fire (or more likely start fires ON it) with mirrors if you set them up right. That's how heliostats work.

The actual myth was that a group of soldiers with polished bronze shields were able to act in tandem to set fire to an entire fleet of ships approaching to attack in a harbor by reflecting the light of the sun using their shields.

Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

At some point you can say "myth busted" with a high enough confidence factor.

That's not how science works. A hypothesis remains such until it is falsified. The very best you can say is "hmm, we couldn't find a way to falsify it. For now it remains a hypotheis." My problem, and probably others, is that they claim to be doing science. They are not. They are blowing shiat up while showing off Kari Byron's tits and calling it science.

Okay. Fine. Top of my head. Early ships were sealed with pitch. The flashpoint of pitch is anywhere between 81F-400F. Aim bunch of mirrors at ship. Raise pitch to flash point. Much much much easier than igniting cloth.

but they attempted a test with a ship sealed with period pitch, and it didn't light up. ..

And yet some MIT students performed a feasibility study in 2009, and achieved ignition. And they address pitch in their FAQ (hypothesizing that it might darken the wood increasing heat absorption, and that the volatiles might play a part).

joeshill:Cyclometh: joeshill: "I hypothesize that it is impossible to set a ship afire with mirrors."Later that same year: "Well, I tried a few different methods, and couldn't set the ship afire - therefore, my hypothesis is correct!"

That was never the hypothesis. You could set a ship on fire (or more likely start fires ON it) with mirrors if you set them up right. That's how heliostats work.

The actual myth was that a group of soldiers with polished bronze shields were able to act in tandem to set fire to an entire fleet of ships approaching to attack in a harbor by reflecting the light of the sun using their shields.

Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

At some point you can say "myth busted" with a high enough confidence factor.

That's not how science works. A hypothesis remains such until it is falsified. The very best you can say is "hmm, we couldn't find a way to falsify it. For now it remains a hypotheis." My problem, and probably others, is that they claim to be doing science. They are not. They are blowing shiat up while showing off Kari Byron's tits and calling it science.

Okay. Fine. Top of my head. Early ships were sealed with pitch. The flashpoint of pitch is anywhere between 81F-400F. Aim bunch of mirrors at ship. Raise pitch to flash point. Much much much easier than igniting cloth.

but they attempted a test with a ship sealed with period pitch, and it didn't light up. ..

MooseUpNorth:Cyclometh: Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

I'll just point out one thing, though. The modern mirrors were flat and aimed at the white sail. The soldiers were likely holding their shields backwards, with the concave side facing the ships (focusing the light), likely targeting the darker hull (where black tar was used to seal the seams), and there may have been a whole bunch more of them.

Greek hoplite shields were almost all made of wood. They may have had a sheet of bronze on the outer surface, but even that wasn't common. Bronze is too soft and heavy to make a good shield; one hit and it's deformed. Wood, possibly reinforced with bronze, would be much lighter and more effective.

And even the best case would mean a thin sheet of hammered bronze that might have been polished, and still would reflect like a sheet of bronze. There's no way it would work given our understanding of the technology available at the time.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:MooseUpNorth: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Lol, I literally said "I don't care if you like it" in the post you quoted, yet you used that pic anyway.

You've been throwing a thread-long tantrum and throwing insults left and right. Damned right, I used it. Chill the fark down, dude, you're going to pop a vein.

Calmer'n you are

Did you once really love Mythbusters and it broke your heart, or do you just derive great pleasure from thinking about and attacking or insulting people who enjoy entertainment you don't like? Or is it something else? Why even waste energy thinking about entertainment you don't like?

1. Did that car in that movie skip across water like a stone? Let's not look at the film and ask everyone involved how they did it, let's just make stuff up and decide.

2. There's this news story about a cop's gun that caught a bullet from another gun and is a matter of public record. It's in the news so it must be fake. Let's have a whole segment where we decide if the story and photos from the newspaper are a myth or not.

/the show would be much better if it was just a xkcd show of 'what ifs' and 'because we cans'.

i'm no scientist, but i think they do a great job doing what they set out to do, especially considering they are not, and do not pretend to be, lab-type scientists. they KNOW they are special effects guys.

they also seem to take criticism very well. viewers send in complaints all the time saying things like "hey, you did this wrong", or "you didn't account for __________", or in the case of one i watched yesterday, they retested crashes because jamie had said that 2 vehicles crashing head-on while each going 50 mph was like 1 hitting a wall at 100 mph. they indeed discovered the viewer(s) was correct by saying that it was actually like 1 vehicle hitting a wall at 50 mph.

Cyclometh:Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

I'll just point out one thing, though. The modern mirrors were flat and aimed at the white sail. The soldiers were likely holding their shields backwards, with the concave side facing the ships (focusing the light), likely targeting the darker hull (where black tar was used to seal the seams), and there may have been a whole bunch more of them.

Besides, don't they frequently ask for and receive help from pretty much anyone they ask it from in the formal scientific community? If their methods were really that bad, the scientific community wouldn't want anything to do with them.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:PsyLord: China White Tea: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

[static.someecards.com image 420x294]

The graphic does get a chuckle from me every time I see it. Look at the size of that huge cracker she's eating.

joeshill:Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

I didn't know there was such hatred and mistrust for those guys. Okay, I'll admit that they seem to be looking forward to blowing things up more than actually doing their job, for the most part. But I always thought that their methods are pretty sound.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse

There's far more science in Mythbusters than you'll ever get sifting through the bullshait your average science or technology Fark thread. No one here is even trying to experiment, work out problems, or look for facts. They're arguing their point of view. It's like reading opinion columns and calling it news.

Paris1127: /also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

If you could not see faults with what they did, then you were not paying attention.It is an amusing show to watch, but the number of times I have watched it and seen an obvious mistake is not funny.

The biggest problem with their death ray tests is the people they had aiming the mirrors, Archamedes would have had people with the profesionalism of soldiers, they used high school/university students doing it for a laugh. The capabilities of an ancient greek and the capabilites of a modern teenager are no where near the same. and in the areas that mattered for the myth, the greeks would have been ALLOT better due to the time they lived in.

Bag-o-Nugs:FarkinNortherner: I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They consistently do bad science. I find the show entertaining, but their methods are abysmal. Also, they sometimes confuse their ineptitude as scientists with busting a myth. Then there's that whole argument people have that they aren't actually exploring myths so much as examining/recreating scenes from movies.

Is it interesting? Does it get people to think a little bit? Does it expose reality to people? Yes? then STFU.

Kit Fister:China White Tea: Pretty sure the Mythbusters effort attempted to weaponize it in a mobile fashion. It's not like this is a sudden revelation of the heretofore unknown concept of solar convergence.

This. I've seen a solar collector in a fixed position turn steel into a liquid in seconds. It can be done. But not quite so simply if you've got a bunch of dudes holding a bunch of mirrors.

Especially if the best mirror technology you have is hammered bronze sheets polished to be shiny.

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo:It's more: "Two minutes of either Googling or doing some simple math would tell us this was pointless, but we'll do it anyway because it involves blowing something up."

And this is somehow a bad thing? Blowing shiat up is worth it for its own sake.